Dutch offshore wind project shatters cost reduction goals

[NeoGreen]

http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/dutch-offshore-wind-project-shatters-cost-reduction-goals.html

Dutch offshore wind project shatters cost reduction goals
Sami Grover
Energy / Renewable Energy July 8, 2016

Offshore wind has a lot going for it. From steadier, stronger wind speeds to the fact that NIMBYism is much less of a challenge, there are reasons why offshore wind has grown rapidly in recent years. That said, there are challenges too. Most notably, it costs a lot more than other forms of power generation. Or at least, it did.

Business Green reports that DONG Energy is set to smash offshore wind cost-reduction goals with two wind farms that it's building off the Dutch coast. While an industry-wide goal is aiming to deliver a leveled cost of power at below €100/MWh by 2020, DONG just announced that the average bid strike price for the two Dutch wind farms currently stands at €72.70/MWh, excluding transmission costs.

The two farms—with 350MW of capacity each—are due to begin generating electricity in the next four to five years. While most estimates have suggested offshore wind could be cost competitive with other forms of power generation somewhere around 2025, record setting projects like this suggest we may even get there ahead of schedule.

It's worth noting, of course, that every project is different. Alongside supply chain efficiencies, technical improvements and other wizardry that led to this low price, Business Green also reports that the Dutch wind farm sites offered very favorable seabed conditions—which presumably reduced costs considerably too.

[Ilsa]

1. but but but they are so ugly ...

Edit: unsuccessfully posted ugly oil spill pix.

[FBaggins]

2. Lol... this might just be the only generation technology...

... that gets to declare that they've exceeded cost savings goals years before they actually generate electricity.

[NNadir]

3. Besides the exclusion of transmission costs, the costs of a dangerous natural gas fueled back up...

...system is excluded (as is typical when selling this useless junk) and the cost of decommissioning this junk and replacing it in twenty years, when it will have become landfill (or seafill) is also excluded.

This failed industry, the wind industry, has had no effect whatsoever on climate change's acceleration, and the more that people sink efforts into it, the more they will be a finger in a dike before a tidal wave.

Have a nice weekend.

[kristopher]

4. More of your "junk" science, eh?

1) Transmission is always excluded from the cost estimates of generating sources.
2) Distributed wind and solar are less dependent on transmission than is nuclear.
3) Nuclear requires MORE spinning reserves than wind or solar because it has a habit of shutting down not only with zero advance warning, but for periods of time that can run into weeks, months and not infrequently, years.
4) Nuclear doesn't replace coal, it supplements it and helps utilities preserve the grid configuration that rewards coal generation most.

[LouisvilleDem]

5. Where is your proof for #3?

I've never heard of spinning reserved for nuclear before. What is your source for this assertion?

[caraher]

6. Any grid system has to be able to compensate for sudden loss of a significant power source

Nuclear is not exempt from this, though I hadn't seen that mentioned explicitly before (perhaps because it's an argument mainly used against renewables). But Google is our friend. One article that does says

The second assumption is that nuclear power is a reliable baseload supplier. In fact it’s no such thing. All nuclear power stations are subject to tripping out for safety reasons or technical faults. That means that a 3.2GW nuclear power station has to be matched by 3.2GW of expensive ‘spinning reserve’ that can be called in at a moments notice.

This PhD thesis I found makes it quite clear that this picture is somewhat oversimplified, and that there are many criteria in use by different grid operators.

Another piece I found speaks specifically of potential large new nuclear plants in the UK, and that the existing requirement was for spinning reserve to allow for the failure of 2 660 MW units. So if a proposed new 1580 MW plant were built, they would need to boost spinning reserve to the 1580 MW level.

Perhaps most interesting is this IAEA document on adding nuclear plants to grids that do not yet include nuclear. They seem chiefly concerned with small grids where the proposed new plant might provide 10% or more of the electric power. Among the conclusions:

• Enough reserve generating capacity should be available to ensure grid stability to replace NPP generation during planned NPP outages.
• The grid should also have a sufficient ‘spinning reserve’ and standby generation capacity that can be quickly brought online in case the NPP were to be disconnected unexpectedly from the grid.

So I think both logic and sources support the general principle behind the assertion. The exact amount of additional spinning reserve needed is not, however, obvious, for any particular new energy source; the level of need is a tradeoff of how much risk one is prepared to accept vs. the cost of reducing that, in light of what outage scenarios seem plausible. The simplest general principle is that they should suffice to maintain at least grid stability (and ideally serve demand) in the face of the sudden loss of the system's largest power plant. If you have a large grid that already has a lot of spinning reserve, you may not need to add any if your new power station is not going to become the largest one on the grid. But you might... and whether you need to add any or not, if nuclear is baseload generation, it will factor into any calculation of the required spinning reserve.

[LouisvilleDem]

7. Just as I expected

There is absolutely no support for the poster's assertion that:

"Nuclear requires MORE spinning reserves than wind or solar..."

Such an assertion would need to be backed by specific examples. Not hypothetical studies done by a person in a completely unrelated field, and not the speculations of an anonymous poster on the internet as to the meaning of random IAEA documents. Proof means proof. It means showing a grid with nuclear power plants that actually has more spinning reserves than a grid with a similar amount of wind or solar generation but no nuclear plants. Until you can show me such an example, I call bullshit.

[caraher]

8. Set whatever standards you like, fellow anonymous poster on the internet

A basic understanding of the concept of spinning reserve and the time and energy scales involved with modes of generation and their variations should suffice in assessing the plausibility of the assertion you challenge.

I think the answer is there's a lot of hype in both directions, and that worry about spinning reserve requirement is being used mainly as a rhetorical weapon by both sides.

I have no idea what you're referring to by "hypothetical studies done by a person in a completely unrelated field." Is this a reference to a PhD dissertation by an electrical engineering professor who studies grid systems for a living? That seems like as "related" as a field gets to this discussion!

My own main purpose in responding was not to prove Kristopher's assertion, but to address your comment, "I've never heard of spinning reserved for nuclear before." So I provided multiple examples of that. I sought neither to prove nor disprove the assertion you challenged, but imagined you might appreciate some thoughts on how one could assess its plausibility.

No need to apologize for having caused me to waste time doing some googling on your behalf - I actually learned some interesting considerations regarding grid planning and operation. I highly recommend this activity, going out and actively learning things you didn't know already, not to wield as rhetorical weapons but to deepen insight.

[kristopher]

9. "... basic understanding of the concept of spinning reserve "

Thanks for taking the time to address the points raised. Your explanation and references are more than adequate.

It's worth pointing out that spinning reserves are most critical for meeting unexpected outages; the larger the scale of the potential unexpected outage you are planning for, the more instantly-available backup you'll have to keep running and ready.

Even though renewables are variable, they are extremely predicable to within a small fraction of their contribution. In contrast to a reactor scram when there is no time to bring non-spinning standby generation to bear on the problem because the loss has to be mitigated immediately; meeting the changing but predicable profile of distributed renewable generation usually allows plenty of time to engage non-spinning reserves.

[LouisvilleDem]

10. Fair Enough

A basic understanding of the concept of spinning reserve and the time and energy scales involved with modes of generation and their variations should suffice in assessing the plausibility of the assertion you challenge.

I can agree with that, so let's start by agreeing on terminology. This is what I found as a definition of spinning reserve:

Spinning Reserve is generation capacity that is on-line but unloaded and that can respond within 10 minutes to compensate for generation or transmission outages. “Frequency-responsive” spinning reserve responds within 10 seconds to maintain system frequency. Spinning reserves are the first type used when shortfalls occur..

http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technology-applications/spinning-reserve

Does that definition work for you?